Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42382004›Full record

ArticleESMO rare cancers2026

Trials for Rare Cancers Are More Successful than those for Common Cancers.

Varun Kasibhatla, Alejandro A Schäffer, Sumeet Patiyal, Tian-Gen Chang, Padma Sheila Rajagopal, Eytan Ruppin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO rare cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Varun KasibhatlaWarren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence RI 02912.
Alejandro A SchäfferCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Sumeet PatiyalCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Tian-Gen ChangCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Padma Sheila RajagopalCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Eytan RuppinCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Rare cancers are often difficult to study in clinical practice despite their potential to yield early efficacy signals and facilitate drug development for broader indications. We compare success rates between trials studying rare versus common cancers and identify contextual factors that may influence trial outcomes over time. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 32,145 completed trials from Trialtrove (https://citeline.informa.com/trials/results), comparing outcomes and common failure reasons between trials enrolling patients with only rare cancers, at least one rare cancer, or only common cancers. We stratified our results by treatment type, trial phase, and sponsor type. We defined rare cancers as those with incidence rates of 15 cases/100,000 person-years; our analyses were repeated using lower thresholds. Results: Trials enrolling only rare cancers had a 42.2% success rate, significantly higher common cancer trials (38.2%; Conclusion: When a new therapy is applicable to both rare and common cancers, initiating trials in rare cancers may enhance rare cancer research and offer a higher probability of success.

Indexed as

clinical trial failure reasonsclinical trialsclinical trial success ratesrare cancers

Identifiers

PMID42382004
PMCPMC13318406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.